On 05/13/2009 05:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Boaz,
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 17:28:10 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I have done the rebase and ran some tests, however I was unable to test these patches
>> as is, because there are some inter tree fallouts.
>>
>> Jens, James, Stephan, I please need your help
>>
>> The situation is like that.
>> - Both block/for-next and scsi/master are based on an old osd upstream-point (v2.6.30-rc3--ce8a7424)
>> - Linus tip has important OSD patches that went in via scsi-rc-fixes which changed Wire format
>> - If I try and merge block/for-next ontop of plain linus/master I get a merge conflict
>> - If I try merge scsi/master block/for-next I get build errors / conflicts
>>
>> So there is no sane tree point that I can test on.
>
> We could ask Jens and James to both merge either Linus' tree or just the
> scsi-rc-fixes tree into their trees. Currently when I merge the scsi
> tree I get only one very minor conflict. The block tree, on the other
> hand, had quite big problems today - but that was due to interactions
> with the scsi tree.
>
> If the above merges were done, then I suspect that the scsi tree with
> commit 1bfe9caaff367601134c14fc428017419f628f7d ("[SCSI] FC Pass Thru
> support") reverted would merge ok with the block tree and give you a base
> for testing.
>
That sounds good, I'll wait a couple of days and see what they decide to do.
Mean while I've collected all relevant patches from Linus and cherry-picked them
above block, and below my patches. And am testing this way. That should give me
99% coverage as scsi-misc does not have anything interacting with me, only
Linus and block do.
Once I figure it out I will push a osd/linux-next also
Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
